Arizona taxpayers could face nearly $200 million in additional costs if the state fails to reduce its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payment error rate in the coming years.
Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows Arizona’s SNAP payment error rate reached 10.8% in Fiscal Year 2025, ranking 33rd nationally and rising from 8.84% in Fiscal Year 2024.
Under changes enacted through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), states with SNAP payment error rates below 6% by Fiscal Year 2028 will avoid cost-sharing requirements with the federal government.
States with error rates between 6-8% must provide a 5% match, those between 8-10% a 10% match, and states exceeding 10% a 15% match.
If Arizona’s error rate remains at 10.8% in Fiscal Year 2028, the state would be subject to the highest matching requirement.
Based on Fiscal Year 2025 figures, eight states recorded error rates below 6% (Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), while six fell between 6-8%. Another 16 states posted rates between 8-10%, and 20 states exceeded 10%.
Zach Milne, senior economist at Common Sense Institute Arizona said the state has a strong incentive to improve its performance.
Mile told The Center Square, “Improving program accuracy strengthens program integrity and helps the state avoid potentially significant federal cost-sharing penalties.”
He described Arizona’s elevated error rate as a relatively recent development, noting that the state’s rate stood at 5.2% in Fiscal Year 2019 — below the new federal threshold.
The Arizona Legislature passed several measures during the 2026 session aimed at lowering the state’s SNAP payment error rate, but they were vetoed by Governor Hobbs.
Senate Bill 1002 would have expanded eligibility verification tools for the Arizona Department of Economic Security, while Senate Bill 1331 proposed work requirements for SNAP recipients age 60 and younger.
Senate Bill 1334 would have barred the department from seeking work-requirement waivers for able-bodied adults without dependents. House Bill 2206 sought to require the state to reduce its SNAP payment error rate to below 3% by 2030.
In her veto messages, Hobbs argued that the legislation duplicated ongoing efforts by the Department of Economic Security to improve accuracy, including enhanced eligibility verification, additional staffing and training, and investments in technology.
“SNAP is the most robust and effective anti-hunger tool we have in Arizona-I know this firsthand,” Hobbs said in her veto letter of the three Senate Bills. “It’s also the most secure, thanks to strong anti-fraud measures and oversight. Instead of creating more needless frustration for Arizona families, I invite you to join me in actually lowering costs for them.”
She also criticized H.R. 1 for imposing unfunded mandates that she said have strained agency resources, noting that she allocated $7.5 million to increase the department’s capacity. Hobbs maintained that the vetoed bills would have added further unfunded requirements without providing resources for implementation or modernization.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
At the May 5 Higley Unified Governing Board meeting, the Board approved a lease agreement with AZ Aspire Academy to utilize a portion of Power Ranch Elementary.
I think it’s a good thing that the district is looking for ways to generate additional revenue from unused space. When enrollment is declining and budgets are getting tighter, we should absolutely be looking for creative ways to make better use of district assets.
But let’s be honest: leasing a portion of one building doesn’t solve the bigger problem.
Higley currently has more than 10,200 vacant seats sitting empty across our schools. Several campuses are operating at less than half of their physical capacity. Power Ranch is only about 32% utilized. Centennial is around 31%. Cortina, Chaparral, and Cooley Middle are all below 50%.
While we are making difficult budget and staffing adjustments because enrollment is declining, we have not had the same level of discussion about what it costs taxpayers to maintain thousands of unused seats.
Those numbers should prompt a serious conversation about how we plan for the future.
Every building costs money to operate whether it’s full or half empty. We still pay for utilities, maintenance, landscaping, repairs, insurance, security, and countless other expenses. The cost doesn’t disappear just because the students do.
At the same time, enrollment continues to decline.
For FY2027, Higley is projecting ADM of approximately 11,250 students, down from 11,695 in FY2026. As enrollment drops, so does funding. The district’s M&O budget limit is projected to decline from approximately $118.9 million to $111.5 million, a reduction of more than $7 million in a single year.
Because school funding is largely driven by student enrollment, staffing levels must eventually align with the number of students being served. The district has already reduced M&O-funded staffing from approximately 1,243 positions to about 1,203. While these reductions are difficult, they are a necessary response to declining enrollment and reduced revenue. The district’s maintained M&O reserve is projected to fall from approximately $17 million to about $13 million.
Yet despite making these necessary adjustments in staffing and operations, we continue carrying the costs associated with significant excess building capacity.
We also cannot forget that taxpayers are still paying approximately $3.5 million annually for the two middle schools. Those payments will continue for roughly the next 27 years. Whether a building is full or half empty, the debt payment remains. That makes it even more important that we have a long-term strategy for utilizing our facilities efficiently and aligning them with current enrollment realities.
This isn’t just happening in Higley. A recent report from the Common Sense Institute, Echoes in the Halls: Arizona School Districts’ Growing Problem with Empty Buildings and Empty Buses, highlighted a growing statewide challenge. School districts across Arizona built facilities during years of rapid growth and are now struggling with declining enrollment while taxpayers continue paying to maintain underutilized schools.
The report should serve as a wake-up call.
Too often, whenever school funding is discussed, the conversation immediately turns to needing more money. Before asking taxpayers for more, we should make sure we are using existing resources as efficiently as possible.
As board members, our responsibility is not simply to spend money. Our responsibility is to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used wisely and producing the best possible outcomes for students.
That means asking difficult questions:
What is the district’s long-term plan for aligning facilities with enrollment trends?
Are there additional opportunities to lease unused space?
Are there community partnerships we should pursue?
Are there alternative educational or community uses for underutilized facilities?
How can we maximize the value of existing facilities while minimizing unnecessary costs to taxpayers?
What is Higley going to do with the vacant land voters approved to sell or lease?
These are not easy discussions. But avoiding them doesn’t make the problem go away.
The district currently maintains approximately $13 million in M&O reserves and nearly $6.5 million in capital carryforward. Those reserves provide stability, but they are not a substitute for long-term planning. If enrollment continues to decline, reserves alone will not solve the challenge of maintaining significant excess capacity.
Taxpayers deserve a district that plans ahead instead of reacting after the fact. They deserve transparency about enrollment trends, building utilization, and long-term costs.
The lease approved on May 5 is a positive step. It brings in revenue and puts some unused space to productive use. But one lease agreement is not a long-term facilities strategy.
I believe the next step is for the district to begin a formal long-range facilities planning process. Whether through a board committee, community task force, or strategic planning effort, we need to start having honest discussions about enrollment trends, facility utilization, future land use, and the long-term costs associated with maintaining excess capacity.
The goal should not be to predetermine outcomes. The goal should be to develop a thoughtful 10-year plan that aligns our facilities with the students we serve and the resources available to support them.
Those conversations should happen before circumstances force decisions upon us.
Most importantly, taxpayers deserve confidence that every possible dollar is being directed toward students rather than maintaining excess capacity.
The goal isn’t to preserve buildings. The goal is to educate students and use taxpayer dollars wisely in support of that mission.
When we keep that priority in mind, the path forward becomes much clearer.
The Republican-led Senate is poised to vote on multiple bills that would impose greater restrictions on gender transition procedures in Arizona.
The Senate Health and Human Services Committee passed four bills targeting different aspects of gender transition procedures: Senate Bills 1014, 1177, 1094, and 1095. All with the exception of SB 1095 were heard in committee last week. All were passed without the support of Democratic lawmakers.
Progressive activists lined up to testify against the bills during the several committee hearings.
SB1095, which would ban gender transition procedures for minors, provoked testimony from several activist adults who identify as transgender.
Former Liberty Elementary School District governing board member, Paul Bixler, said SB1095 would harm, not help, children. Bixler, a man, identifies as a transgender woman.
Ruth Carter, an attorney, said SB1095 amounted to discrimination. Carter, a woman, identifies as a nonbinary individual.
Marilyn Rodriguez, Creosote Partners founder and lobbyist representing the ACLU, said SB1095 was impermissibly broad as written.
Sen. Lauren Kuby (D-LD8) called the bill discriminatory, and argued that lawmakers shouldn’t ban gender transition procedures since certain healthcare experts support those procedures as treatments for gender dysphoria.
“These are private, personal decisions, healthcare decisions, we shouldn’t be discriminating against transgendered youth or those who have gender dysphoria as is described,” said Kuby.
Sen. Analise Ortiz (D-LD24) said the legislature would be better focusing on making healthcare more affordable. Ortiz said the legislation was not only discriminatory but violative of parental rights laws.
“It bans healthcare for a specific group of people solely based on gender identity; that is discrimination no matter how you want to paint it,” said Ortiz.
Sen. Mark Finchem (R-LD1), the bill sponsor, disputed the narratives of his Democratic colleagues that healthcare experts were to be trusted fully and that gender transition procedures were appropriate for minors.
“To those who worship the grounds that doctors walk on: they also said cigarettes were good for you,” said Finchem. “[Permanently altering treatments like mastectomies] are decisions that kids are being talked into, in some cases. I didn’t just dream this bill up myself. This came from kids and parents. More kids than parents.”
Majority Leader John Kavanagh (R-LD3) questioned the logic of his Democratic colleagues that parents had a right to submit children to irreversible medical treatments, but not the right to decide whether their children should be called by certain pronouns or alternative names in school.
SB 1014 would require health insurers to offer coverage for detransition procedures should those insurers provide coverage for gender transition procedures. It would also issue reporting requirements on insurance claims for gender detransitions.
“Detransitioners are people too; they deserve the same care as those who are manipulated into believing they have gender dysphoria, which leads them to undergo gender transition surgery that they later regret,” said the bill sponsor, Sen. Janae Shamp (R-LD29), in a press release. “This legislative package puts their long-term well-being above politics and ideology.”
Jeanne Woodbury, a lobbyist for the ACLU, argued the reporting requirements within the bill would result in discriminatory outcomes.
Bixler, the transgender-identifying former school board member, claimed the bill would result in providers refusing to provide gender transition procedures.
SB 1177 would ban public funding for gender transition procedures.
Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-LD7), the bill sponsor, explained during Wednesday’s HHS hearing that she discovered taxpayers were funding gender transition treatments for prisoners. Rogers also discovered that individuals were being arrested on purpose in order to receive free gender transition treatments.
“Taxpayer dollars should never be used to bankroll irreversible procedures on children,” said Rogers in a later press release. “This legislation draws a hard line and makes clear that public funds will not subsidize experimental or life-altering interventions on minors.”
Ashton Allen expressed support on behalf of Center for Arizona Policy. Allen said subsidies should be tied to valid medical treatments, which he said gender transition procedures weren’t.
Woodbury, the transgender-identifying ACLU lobbyist, argued against Rogers’ claims and said the treatments were affordable. Woodbury also said an end to subsidization would lead to excessive medical risks associated with forced detransitions.
Minority Whip Rosanna Gabaldon (D-LD21) said ending subsidies was “extreme and punitive,” as well as “unfair and dangerous.”
Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20) accused Rogers of faking a story that individuals were getting themselves arrested in order to receive free gender transition treatments. Gonzales called the bill discriminatory.
Sen. Shamp questioned why drugs historically considered to be dangerous were suddenly ethical in the context of gender reassignment.
“Lupron was deemed cruel and unusual punishment being utilized in the prison system for sex offenders, rapists. But now we want Arizona taxpayers to pay for that drug to be utilized for gender reassignment? How the heck did we get here?” said Shamp.
SB 1094 would allow individuals to seek damages in court against physicians who performed gender reassignment surgeries on them as minors. Kavanagh sponsored the bill.
“When permanent procedures are performed on minors who suffer harm, there must be consequences,” said Kavanagh in a press release. “These reforms restore transparency and provide a pathway to just compensation for those harmed.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Who doesn’t want more money in their pocket? After a brutal year that featured COVID lockdowns, small businesses and families trying to make ends meet could certainly use some.
At the end of June, the state legislature passed a $1.8 billion tax cut, the single largest tax cut in Arizona history. And Governor Ducey didn’t waste any time before signing the budget, which shouldn’t come as a big surprise. As Senator Mesnard explained while voting in favor of the budget:
At the end of the day, when this passes, every single taxpayer in Arizona will get a cut. Every single one.
It was certainly a day worth celebrating. But not everyone joined the party.
Apparently, Invest in Arizona, a political committee sponsored by Arizona Education Association and Stand for Children, isn’t happy with the idea of every Arizona taxpayer receiving a cut. In an effort to block the historic tax cuts, the group filed three referendums that include components from three bills passed this legislative session:
